Date of Filling      :  22.09.2014.

                                                                                            Date of Disposal  :  05.08.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT:  THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,              …    PRESIDENT

                     TMT.  S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                          …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint No.63/2014

(Dated this Friday the 05^th day of August 2016)

Mr. S. Nagarajan,

S/o. Mr. N. Sankaranarayanan,

No.43/503, Avaishanmugam street,

Rajajipuram,

Thiruvallur Town andTaluk.                                                          … Complainant.

/ Versus /

1.  The Manager,

     Bank of India,

     Guindi.

2. The Chief Manager,

    Asset Recovery Branch,

    No.30, Errabalu Street,

    Chennai - 600 001.

3. The Asst. General Manager,

    Bank of India,

    Card Production Dept.,

    4^th Floor, Bank of India Building,

    Mumbai.

4. The Manager,

    Bank of India,

    Thiruvallur Branch,

    Thiruvallur.                                                                 … Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 20.07.2016 in the presence of Thiru. T.S. Elangovan, Counsel for the complainant, Mrs. A. Lathamaheswari, Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party and the 1, 3 & 4^th opposite parites are set Ex-parte for non filing of written version and  having perused the documents and evidences of the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party, written & oral arguments on the side of the complainant this Forum delivered the following,

                                                ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the 1 to 4 opposite parties for  seeking relief to release Rs.6,000/- blocked by the bank, to provide the details for the amount Rs.7,980.58, to reverse Rs.1,100/- debited as legal charges in the complainant’s account and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to  the complainant with cost Rs.8,000/-.

The brief averments of the complaint is as follows:-

The complainant is having a Savings Bank Account with the branch office of the 1^st opposite party from 1995 vide account no.801110100007896.  He has been provided with Add-on Card no.5420343008243102 on his son’s name.  The said Add-on card is only issued in the absence of the main card. As an honest customer, he is regularly making payment for the purchases and expenses made under his India card, through his above S.B. A/c only.  The last payment made on 08.01.2014 of Rs.3,500/- for the transactions made during the period Oct. 2013 to Dec. 2013.  The complainant not paid for transaction for the period 16^th April to 15^th August 2013.  The reason for non-payment for the above months is only due to non-receipt of statement of expenses and purchases made under his card.

2.       The complainant received numerous calls from the office of the 1^st opposite party for remittance of amount due under the above account and he replied that he is prepared to pay the amount, if details are provided for the dues.  In this regard the complement sent E-mail to the 3^rd opposite party and copy to the 1^st opposite party.  Failing to provide the details, as requested in  E-Mail, the 1^st opposite party have drew up the due amount to NPA and initiated legal action against the complainant by issuing legal notice dated 06.03.2014.

3.       In the absence of any response to his Genuine Demand and not understanding real difficulty faced by him, he received a letter from the 2^nd opposite party informing that a sum of Rs.8,481.13 as on 05.02.2014 (towards Principal amount Rs.7,980.58 + Rs.500.65 Interest) is due from him in above account and directed to contact the 1^st opposite party before 15.02.2014 to avail the concessions in settling the outstanding dues.  In reply to the letter the complainant sent a letter by Reg. post on 19.02.2014 to the 2^nd opposite party informing that he is willing to make payment on receipt of the details from bank for the “due amount” and referred the E-mail sent to the bank on 16.10.2013 in this regard.  But the complainant has not received any letter from the 2^nd opposite party as stated in his letter and per contra a letter dated:27.03.2014 was received by the complainant to appear before Lok Adalat at Chennai on 12.04.2014.

4.       The counsel for the complainant appeared before the Lok Adalat proceedings on 14.04.2014 and he was directed to meet Sri Govindaraj representative of the Bank.  The counsel requested the representative Govindaraj to provide the details for the amount due.  He was helpless.  But after 10 days he responded to the request partially by sending a list containing purchases and expenses made in the card for the period from 01.01.2013 to 05.01.2014 on 28.04.2014.  But the list is not specific either about the payments due nor tallying the same with the total dues as claimed by the bank.  These actions have been initiated by the opposite parties without responding to any of the letters dated:18.02.2014, 10.03.2014 & 13.03.2014 respectively and to the E-mail dated:16.10.2013 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties.  The complainant has repeatedly conveyed in writing through orally to the bank that he is willing to pay any due in his account only if he is provided with the details for the same.

5.       The 1^st opposite party’s inaction in not providing details for the amount dues as pleaded by him is a gross deficiency in services of the bank.  Without providing the details, the opposite parties’ reactions of taking legal action against the complainant by issuing legal notice and referred the matter to Lok Adalat is also amounts to deficiency in their service.  Instead of furnishing statement the Bank initiated legal proceedings without any valid reasons.  That itself is violations of natural justice.

6.       Hence the complainant sent a legal notice on 13.05.2014 to the opposite parties explaining all the said facts legally.  The opposite parties received the said notice.  But the opposite parties neither issued any reply nor complied with the demands of legal notice till date.  But the 1^st opposite party without any valid reasons block the amount of Rs.6,000/- deposited in the account in August 2014.  Therefore, this complaint is filed.

7.       The contention of written version of the 2^nd opposite party is  briefly as follows:-

The complaint is not maintainable in law and on facts.  The allegations mentioned in the complaint are not true and are denied.  It is true that the complainant Thiru. S. Nagarajan is one among the customers of the opposite party, he has been maintaining a Saving Bank Account with the opposite party branch since January 1995.  The account was conducted well till 08.01.2014.  The complainant applied for Credit Card and was sanctioned and delivered along with an add on card which was utilized his son.  He was honoring his commitments of debits in the Credit Card till 08.01.2014.  The complainant has not paid for the transaction between 16^th April to 15^th August 2013 stating that he did not receive the statement for the add on card spent by his son.  Upon repeated request he paid Rs.3,500/- on 08.01.2014.  The account was showing a debit balance of Rs.7,080/-.

8.       In the meanwhile, as per R.B.I. Policy and bank norms any debit balance lying for more than three months will be treated as NPA and follow-up actions has to be initiated.  In the instant case, the account holder could have ascertained from his son about the details of usage of debit card and invariably all the credit card holders are served a statement / details of all his previous commitments.  Further once a card is used, the customer is served with a copy of payment received by the M.E.S. (Member Establishment in other words the VENDOR) or POINT OF SALES (the SELLER).  Any dispute in billing or clarifications could be obtained only after payment of the amount.  In the instant case, the complainant preferred not to pay back and when the previous Chief Manager repeatedly conducted him he not only angrily reacted.  As the account has turned NPA, were also preferred a notice through bank’s approved lawyer for which legal charge of Rs.1,100/- was debited according to practice in vogue.  Thus the debit balance in the account now stands at Rs.9,080/-. 

9.       The said matter had been communicated to the said complainant by a letter dated 05.02.2014 is due from him in above account and directed to contact the 1^st opposite party before 15.02.2014 to avail the concessions in settling the outstanding dues.  A Lok Adalat was conducted and this account was listed in it. The complainant’s Advocate from Thiruvallur Town approached the 1^st opposite party’s bank and advised him through the head office credit department he can get the statement and if it is served whether his client will pay the amount due to the bank.  This was accepted and the customer was supplied the necessary statement, the fact of which was acknowledged by him in the legal counter served to us.  Now he requires the charge slips (to verify whether his son has really signed it).  The considering the time lapse and involves a laborious search of charge slips to godown at the Head Office Mumbai, we should not be comply to the request of the Complainant. 

10.     The cause of action for the complaint is not admitted and there is no negligence on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  This petition  is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties.  There is no deficiency in service, negligent and carelessness act on the part of the 2^nd opposite party as contended in the complaint.   Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

11.     In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked.   Whereas though sufficient time given to the 2^nd opposite party, he has not come forward to proceed further with and failed to file the proof affidavit on his side and therefore, it is closed.

12.    At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

13.     Written arguments filed and oral arguments adduced on the side of the complainant.

14.     Point no.1:-

According to the averments made in the complaint, inspite of repeated E-mail sent to the 3^rd opposite party and the copy of the same to the 1^st opposite party they have failed to provide the purchase details pertaining to the use of the Add on Card no.5420343008243102 and therefore, he could not pay the loan due to him, which clearly amounts for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Whileso, it is vehemently contended by the 2^nd opposite party in his written version that the 1 to 3 opposite parties have acted according to the rules and regulations and guidelines of the bank and infact the account holder could have ascertained from his son about the details of usage of debit card since invariably all the credit card holders are served a statement / details of all his previous commitments and moreover the pre-litigation dispute pending before the Lok Adalat, on the request of the Counsel of the complainant herein, he was supplied the necessary statement and even thereafter the complainant request the charge slips which considering the time lapse and involves the laborious search of charge slips sent to godown at Head Office, Mumbai, they should not comply to the request of the complainant and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1 to 3 opposite parties.

15.     At this juncture, it is needless to say that the complainant should prove the allegations made in the complaint against the opposite parties by means of consistent and relevant evidence.  If it is so, on careful perusal of the averments made in the complaint as well as the proof affidavit this Forum has to consider initially, whether this Forum is having jurisdiction to try this complaint?.  In fact, the complaint has been filed by including the 4^th opposite party who is the Manager, Bank of India, Thiruvallur Branch, in order to establish the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The other 1 to 3 opposite parties are all come under the purview of the jurisdiction of other Forums.  At the outset, this Forum has to decide whether any cause of action arose against the 4^th opposite party on the averments made in the complaint?.  As honestly decided that there is no documents filed to establish any cause of action arose against the 4^th opposite party except mere averments made in para. no.8 of the complaint as that the 4^th opposite party is the Branch Manager, of the local Branch of the Bank of India, Thiruvallur.  Furthermore, on careful going through the averments of the complaint as well as the documents filed as Ex.A1 to Ex.A10, not even a single transaction made between the complainant herein and the 4^th opposite party on any account in this regard.  Therefore, it is crystal clear that no cause of action arose against the 4^th opposite party who only comes under the purview of the jurisdiction of this Forum. 

16.     At this point of time, this Forum wants to enlighten that the 4^th opposite party was added as a party only having an intention to file this complaint before this Forum where the complainant is residing at Thiruvallur Town.  Apart from the 4^th opposite party, if any cause of action arose against all the 1 to 3 opposite parties before this Forum is in question.  Infact, no such cause of action arose against the 1 to 3 opposite parties as alleged before this Forum.  Therefore, this Forum is not at all having jurisdiction to try this complaint to proceed further with against the 1 to 3 opposite partries.   At this juncture, as already decided above inrespect of the 4^th opposite party, there is no cause of action arose.   Thus this complaint against the 4^th opposite party is deserved to be dismissed.  Regarding the 1 to 3 opposite parties, this Forum has no jurisdiction to proceed further with, and hence the allegation made in the complaint against the 1 to 3 opposite parties cannot be decided by this Forum.   Thus point no.1 is answered accordingly.

17.     Point no.2:-

In view of the decision arrived in point no.1, there is no deficiency o service on the party of the 4^th opposite party and there by the complainant is not entitled for any relief against the 4^th opposite party.  Inrespect of the 1 to 3 opposite parties the complainant is directed to seek relief before the appropriate Forum.  Thus point no.2 is answered accordingly.

18.     In the result, this complaint is dismissed. Accordingly, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum to file fresh complaint with the same set of cause of action within 2 months from the date of this order and to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.  There will be no order to cost.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 05^th   August  2016.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT